• nandeEbisu@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 days ago

    Honestly, if NYC voted to secede from the state, it would probably be pretty popular. Albany doesn’t even pretend to view us as anything more than a piggy bank at this point.

  • projectsquared@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    I saw that on the ballot in Madison County and thought there would be no way it would pass. It passed in all 7 counties that had the proposal in the ballot.

    There’s no way the counties down here can be financially solvent without the northern half of the state.

    People keep telling me not to worry. After seeing so many things that “would never happen” come to pass it is difficult to not take this seriously. Both mine and my wife’s retirement is solely based on our Illinois teacher pensions. I’m guessing those dissolve if this comes to pass? Do I move preemptively?

    • AdolfSchmitler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      I wouldn’t think your state pension goes away since that’s based on your employment with the state, not what state you currently reside in. Now any financial support those counties were getting from the state would go away.

  • RavenFellBlade@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    The States Attorney already said its nothing more than a symbolic gesture. They legally cannot secede from the state. I have the severe misfortune of living in one of these counties. Everything around here is dead or dying because of decades of total, uncontested Republican rule. Whole towns here are nearly abandoned. And yet, they STILL bitch about how the Democrats, who have no control here, have ruined everything.

  • _bcron@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    And then 2 years later they realize their tax base can’t support their infrastructure and this is how Iowa grows a couple gnarly tentacles

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Good riddance. Now let them struggle with import/export procedures with the USA, and sudden absence of farming subsidies.

  • MeaanBeaan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    I love how the vote was for them to just talk to other counties about it to see if they could do it.

    “Yeah we went and talked about it. Turns out you can’t actually do that. Who woulda thought? Anyway, how 'bout dem Bears?”

    • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Quebec’s first referendum on Independence was like that, the government was asking for approval to negotiate the terms in order to hold a second referendum where people would know in advance how it would be handled, aka the reverse of how Brexit was handled (even though their referendum didn’t make it an obligation to do it).

    • resin85@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      Last I checked, Iroquois county had 9000 yes votes to secede. Good luck with that massive tax revenue base. Chicagoland’s 10 million plus residents will be happy to stop sending them money.

    • Skydancer@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Not the solution you think it is. It would be the rural Republican areas of California that would split off, meaning the magats would have an even stronger lock on the senate.

    • Treczoks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      Seriously good idea. Most of them would still have more population than some of the potato fields with overblown grandeur calling themselves “States”.

      • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago
        • DC
        • Puerto Rico + US Virgin Islands form a Carribean US state
        • Guam, American Samoa, Northern Marinara Islands form a Pacific US state
        • Navajo nation (the largest native american nation with significant territories) forms a state
            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 days ago

              They would be acknowledging they they won’t ever be treated as a full and independent country by doing so. They currently claim sovereignty and have special rights because of it, including the right to govern traditionally and to deny membership to their colonial oppressors

              If they want statehood I’m happy to give it, but I’ve seen no indication they want it

        • Treczoks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          So you would have 19 new States from splitting California, and four extra ones to fix long overdue mistakes. Flag designers will get a major headache redesigning the flag with 73 stars…

          • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            I don’t know about the California’s. I would prioritise giving statehood to the peoples who previously did not have the right to representation even though they were within US territory and citizens.

    • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      6 days ago

      If the southern states are finally ejected, then whatever is left will be 10x stronger.

      It was after reconstruction, when the south wasn’t able to give all their votes to their favorite sons in the senate that we finally started to develop as a country with things like the intercontinental railroad.

      Ejecting the south would lead to a new golden age for the US.

      It’s because of the infinite southern corruption hole that we put NASA in Alabama, where it basically collapsed into failure, and the superconducting-supercollider’s 50B dollars were swallowed by Texas because they wouldn’t let it be built in Illinois, then their contractors ate the rest of the money.

      Russia should be against a balkanization, the South was the only thing holding the US back, without them we’re unstoppable.

      • whithom@discuss.online
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Well, the electoral college (assuming we can vote again) would be based on population. And based on by very small amount of research:

        Blue Illinois: ~17-18 electoral votes

        Red Illinois: ~3-4 electoral votes

        The last time Illinois voted red was in 1988 for Bush.

        Here is an estimate of the outcome from ChatGPT, if you’re into such things.

        If Illinois were split into “Red Illinois” and “Blue Illinois,” it would likely be a boon for the Democratic side (the “Blues”) rather than the Republicans (the “Reds”). Here’s why:

        1. Electoral Vote Distribution:

        • Blue Illinois (urban and suburban areas, especially around Chicago) would retain most of the population and, therefore, the majority of Illinois’ current electoral votes.

        • Red Illinois (primarily rural areas) would receive only a small number of electoral votes due to its lower population.

        2. National Electoral Impact:

        • Currently, Illinois’ electoral votes (all 21) reliably go to the Democratic candidate. If split, Blue Illinois would continue to deliver its substantial number of votes to Democrats.

        • Red Illinois, with its few electoral votes, would be a small gain for Republicans but would not offset the significant Democratic advantage from Blue Illinois.

        3. Practical Outcome:

        • While Republicans might gain a small number of electoral votes from Red Illinois, Democrats would retain the larger share. This would effectively increase the Democratic advantage, as they would gain electoral votes from a smaller but reliable “blue” state and leave Republicans with only a minor gain.

        In summary, a split would likely strengthen the Democratic position overall, giving them a solidly blue state (Blue Illinois) with substantial electoral power while only slightly increasing the Republican count.

        • lunarul@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          Blue Illinois: ~17-18 electoral votes

          Red Illinois: ~3-4 electoral votes

          I always wondered about that. Why do states give all their electoral votes to one candidate? If a state has 20 votes and 51% of its population voted X, while 49% voted Y, wouldn’t it be fair to give 10 votes to X and 10 votes to Y, instead of 20 to X and nothing for Y?

          • festus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            Think of it this way - imagine nationally the election is close and how your state distributes EC votes determines the outcome. Let’s further say 70% of your citizens voted for candidate A, but for candidate A to win nationally they need all your EC votes. Given that your state laws should primarily be for the benefit of said state’s citizens, would you really want an outcome that 70% of your state’s voters don’t want? All it would take is one election where this determined the outcome before the voters would make it “winner takes all”.

          • whithom@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            So actually, Maine does not. It splits its votes. But that’s just the way the states decided to do it. Theoretically, that process could change now if a law passed.

        • Tower@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          It’s not about the House or the EC, it’s the Senate. 2 more reliably R senators makes things worse

        • AmidFuror@fedia.io
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          That’s why you shouldn’t use AI. The Democratic advantage describes doesn’t exist. It takes a small number of reliable EC votes from Democrats and gives them to Republicans.

          • whithom@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            And if every state did it, they wouldn’t get many total. But let’s be real, we’re never voting again. Next year the camps will start up.

  • tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    The only way you can do that is if Congress signs off on it.

    Every other state has an incentive not to permit that, because then that state gets two senators of its own.

    Congress has only ever permitted a state to split a single time – West Virginia, during the American Civil War, where West Virginia was willing to side with the Union.

    Texas also negotiated the right to have the ability to split into five states if it wanted down the line at the time it joined, but I recall reading that it was considered to no longer be an exerciseable option after the American Civil War.

    EDIT:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admission_to_the_Union

    Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1:

    New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.[4]

      • g0d0fm15ch13f@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        TN also almost split like VA in the civil war. They were the last to secede (doing so to protest Lincoln calling for state militia members to quell the rebellion). East TN (Knoxville region) was unionist whereas West TN (Memphis region) was rebellious. TN also supplied the most fighters to the union of any secessionist state.

        • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          They almost split because the east was mountainous and unfit for plantations, so the plantation owners that ran all the southern state legislatures shit on them endlessly, as is their wont.

          • piccolo@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            6 days ago

            East Tennessee had for long had quarrels with the rest of the state. The culture and economic differences caused great strife between the regions. But it had railroads vital to connect VA with the rest of the south without going around the mountains.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Creating new states from territory that nominally belonged to an existing state (in the sense of claiming everything west of their established territory) but was actually unexplored frontier was a little different than carving a chunk out of an existing state with fully-established borders after the fact.

        • pwnicholson@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          No doubt it’s a bit different. But it was still splitting and both did have established western boundaries.